***
“Well aware of conservative skepticism, Boehner and other GOP leaders inserted a provision that would call for a vote on a balanced budget amendment later this year. It didn’t fly. ‘Why do we need to increase debt $2.4 trillion just to schedule a vote on the BBA?’ asks one GOP aide. ‘It’s a pretty lame attempt to appease the Tea Party that gave Boehner the majority — not a serious effort to pass a balanced budget amendment.’

“The commission is no more popular. ‘We’ve already had 17 commissions over three decades and $13 trillion in new debt,’ tweeted Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, a leading supporter of Cut, Cap and Balance. ‘No more commissions.’

“Twelve Republican senators and 39 Republican representatives have signed a pledge not to vote for a debt-ceiling increase without the key elements of Cut, Cap and Balance. When a Senate GOP aide was asked whether it will require 60 votes to pass the debt bill, he responded, ‘I think one of our guys who signed the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge would force it to be 60.’ In other words, Republicans might end up filibustering themselves.”

***
“The truth is that the United States doesn’t need, and shouldn’t have, a debt ceiling. Every other democratic country, with the exception of Denmark, does fine without one. There’s no debt limit in the Constitution. And, if Congress really wants to hold down government debt, it already has a way to do so that doesn’t risk economic chaos—namely, the annual budgeting process. The only reason we need to lift the debt ceiling, after all, is to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, we’ll face an absurd scenario in which Congress will have ordered the President to execute two laws that are flatly at odds with each other. If he obeys the debt ceiling, he cannot spend the money that Congress has told him to spend, which is why most government functions will be shut down. Yet if he spends the money as Congress has authorized him to he’ll end up violating the debt ceiling…

“One argument you hear for having a debt ceiling is that it’s useful as what the political theorist Jon Elster calls a ‘precommitment device’—a way of keeping ourselves from acting recklessly in the future, like Ulysses protecting himself from the Sirens by having himself bound to the mast. As precommitment devices go, however, the debt limit is both too weak and too strong. It’s too weak because Congress can simply vote to lift it, as it has done more than seventy times in the past fifty years. But it’s too strong because its negative consequences (default, higher interest rates, financial turmoil) are disastrously out of proportion to the behavior it’s trying to regulate. For the U.S. to default now, when investors are happily lending it money at exceedingly reasonable rates, would be akin to shooting yourself in the head for failing to follow your diet.”

***
“Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem…

“History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

***
“The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen.

“You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill – one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate…

“You know, I’ve always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people. And right now, we have a government so big and so expensive it’s sapping the drive of our people and keeping our economy from running at full capacity.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

These are tricky waters for the Rs. It is all in the word use…Balance is the word of the day. Rs need to stress Tax Reform as a basic element. Closing loopholes, and deductions should be an R element. We need to stress the Fairness of person A and B having the same income, pay roughly the same TAX. Also, we need to broaden the TAX base. There are palitable ways of dealing with this

r keller on July 26, 2011 at 1:39 AM

If a “balanced approach” requires raising taxes in a recession, then it’s not really a balanced approach.

The answer to the “balanced” rhetoric is to reply that our problem is not that we don’t pay enough taxes, but that the government spends too much money. Raising more taxes will just let the government spend even more.

Ridiculously unfair. Boehner is doing a dance with the best information provided him. He realizes Republicans may very well be blamed for default, even though Bozo the Corrupt is entirely to blame. If he can buy time — six months — it will be the high season of Republican primary, where everyone will be throwing the kitchen sink at Barry.

So when he isn’t insulting people people on Palin threads, he betting against his country. Can this guy get any better? /

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Silly Cindy chimes in again!

Nah, Cindy. If you have half a clue, you would admit that our politicos in DC are corrupt and have no interest in the citizenry nor the country’s financial future.

Smart investors recognize the signs, read the markets and invest accordingly. If you wish to have blind faith in the cronyism and corruption of DC and keep your hard earned investments in instruments that will tank after a downgrading of the US credit market…..feel free.

Hell, Glenn Beck has bet against the morons in DC and has done quite well in gold.

Boehner did better. But then again, I have to admit. I did not watch Obama. The man just gets on my nerves.

I know there will be people who feel as if the GOP plan is not good enough for them and it might be that it will not pass the Senate anymore than Cut Cap and Balance did.

But if the Washington Post is correct and the plan includes the following:

• Cuts that exceed the debt hike. The framework would cut and cap discretionary spending immediately, saving $1.2 trillion over 10 years (subject to CBO confirmation), and raise the debt ceiling by less – up to $1 trillion.

• Caps to control future spending. The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration).

• Balanced Budget Amendment. The framework advances the cause of the Balanced Budget Amendment by requiring the House and Senate to vote on the measure after Oct. 1, but before the end of the year, allowing the American people time to build sufficient support for this popular reform.

• Entitlement Reforms & Savings. The framework creates a Joint Committee of Congress that is required to report legislation that would produce a proposal to reduce the deficit by at least $1.8 trillion over 10 years. Each chamber would consider the proposal of the joint committee on an up-or-down basis without any amendments. If the proposal is enacted, then the president would be authorized to request a debt limit increase of $1.6 trillion.

We could do worse. The truth is if there is not a deal everyone might lose. Even if Obama loses, that does not mean the conservatives or the Tea Party or the Republicans win..it might end up being a lose lose proposition.

I don’t think we will default overnight. I think that our resources will carry us for awhile. I think that the government can get enough money together to make interest payments, until and unless interest rates get too high. But eventually things will catch up. And that could be bad for everyone.

It’s as if last November never happened to Democrats in Washington DC or to this President. Instead, Obama calls for another campaign speech/press conference last night filled with more Alice in Wonderland fairy tails and rhetorical blather. Put it on paper, “so we can see what’s in it” Mr. President—your words are hollow and wearing thin.

Simple, common sense, and would save not only Fed budget but STATES as well.

But they want to Cloward- Piven us and transform us, so we get other “plans” that can’t pass.

PappyD61 on July 26, 2011 at 6:42 AM

That’s a fine plan. And you are right, it’s simple and common sense. Any real person with half a brain would do that but we live in a day when common sense is not a part of anything… anything coming out of Washington!

In fact, it would be easy for a lot of us to fix what is wrong in DC. There is nothing complicated about what needs done. Nothing at all. It’s just that there is this obstacle called the Democrat party. They are a wall to anything simple, good and right.

that is weird because at my house I hear the same thing out of my kid but it goes like this:

“the truth is I shouldn’t have an allowance tied to my chores – you should just give me money for everything I want”

I say no to both stupid ideas.

batterup on July 25, 2011 at 11:58 PM

The problem there is you are applying that logic (and it is sound) to a man that has never had a real job. I bet your kid does more real physical work than Obama ever has (excluding golfing, of course).

I assume you mean real cuts, not cuts to inflated projections.
To me, it’s simple: Find what we spent last year and cut 10% off the top. If they wanted to, they could cut that in just fraud and abuse without affecting any program’s real impact. Frankly, I can think of several redundant and unconstitutional programs that could be eliminated, but I don’t want to get ahead of myself.
Seal the borders is a given and should be the bare minimum.

Has anyone else seen the WSJ article (and I saw an AP article in my local paper today) discussing a recently released report on the increasing gap in net worth between whites and blacks and between whites and Hispanics.

Holy race war, Batman. Look out for the cries for social justice and wealth redistribution.